Standards in public life and the so-called Hillsborough Law: a strengthening of our constitutional safeguards

Standards and accountability in public life have come under close scrutiny in recent years – and draft legislation just introduced into Parliament sets out to rethink what many of us consider to be constitutional safeguards. On 16 September 2025, the Government introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill into Parliament. 

The Bill is informally known as the “Hillsborough Law”, coming as it does in response to the long campaign, led by those affected by the Hillsborough disaster, for an enforceable duty of candour on public officials in their dealings with official investigations. The Bill, however, covers much more and should touch upon the interests of all of society in one way or another. Thus, the Bill also creates new criminal offences for official misconduct, requirements for Codes of Ethical Conduct for many public bodies including schools and other education institutions, and aims overall to achieve a fairer balance between citizens and the state. 

Duty of candour and assistance

The Bill would impose a duty (in section 2) on “public authorities and public officials” to “at all times act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations.” The Courts, Houses of Parliament (central and devolved) are excluded from this duty, but otherwise the reach of the duty is wide. It applies to core public bodies delivering public services, private bodies delivering public functions such as those on a government contract, or other persons with public responsibilities, such as those with health and safety responsibility. This is expected  to capture roughly 1.9 million individuals, either employed by public authorities or public officials in their own capacity or otherwise caught by the duty, and applies to non-statutory inquiries, statutory inquiries and coronial investigations that commence after the proposed provision would come into force. The Bill allows for more areas of activity to be covered further down the line. 

Those subject to the new duty of candour are required to voluntarily disclose relevant information, rather than on request by an inquiry or investigation, and moreover must actively identify why they consider it is significant to the inquiry or investigation’s objectives. The impetus is clear: public authorities will be required to assist investigations in narrowing the issues, disclosing and uncovering failures and/or contributory actions, and any perceived actions of delaying or obstructing an investigation may be met with personal and criminal liability. 

The Bill introduces a principle of personal accountability for organisational candour. Public officials in charge (exercising functions equivalent to a Chief Executive) of a relevant authority are required, personally, to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the authority complies with the duty of candour. Further, failure to comply with the duty as described, coupled with an intention to impede the inquiry or a recklessness as to compliance with the duty, will constitute a criminal offence. A person who is found to have committed such an offence is subject to a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment and a fine. 

New requirements for codes of ethical conduct

Separately, the Bill also proposes a new statutory duty on public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain high standards of ethical conduct, as defined by the Seven Principles of Public Life, or “Nolan Principles”, by adopting a code which sets out what is expected of their workforce. Overarching sector codes may be implemented by relevant bodies, such as professional associations, or by the Department for Education, to be implemented in all maintained schools. 

Reforming the offence of misconduct in public office

The notoriously difficult to prosecute offence of misconduct in public office would be abolished, instead being replacing with two new statutory offences under the same name. The offences would be committed by a person holding public office who:

1. uses their office to obtain a benefit, or cause another person to suffer a detriment, knowing (or they ought to know) that doing so is a “seriously improper act” (a term only partially defined by reference to a list of factors to which a jury would need to have regard when considering whether this offence has been committed) (section 12); or
2. is aware that they are under a duty to prevent, or prevent a risk of, death or serious bodily harm to another person, and breaches that duty by intentionally or recklessly putting that person at a significant risk of death or serious bodily harm (section 13).

Misconduct in public office relating to a “seriously improper act” would carry a maximum sentence of ten years in prison, whereas a breach of a duty to prevent death or serious injury would carry a maximum of 14 years in prison. This compares to the existing common law offence which, although carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison, has rarely been used in relation to ‘executive’ or decision-makers within public authorities. 

Another new offence of misleading the public is included in the Bill. This would apply where a public authority or official acts with the intention of misleading, or recklessness as to their leading of, the public, and they know or ought to know that their actions are “seriously improper”. The Bill therefore constitutes a proposed reform with serious consequences for individuals exercising public functions and much of the responsibility will be with individuals to ensure compliance.

Implication on accountability mechanisms

It is of no doubt that the aim of the Bill is to significantly recalibrate the dynamics of public inquiries and investigations, fostering a more collaborative environment where truth-finding is not hindered by institutional defensiveness or procedural delay.

In that context, the call for a “parity of arms” between the bereaved and public authorities is carried through in Schedule 6 by introducing non-means tested legal aid for representation at inquests for families of the deceased, where a public authority is an Interested Person. 

If the Bill is enacted in something akin to its current form, authorities and officials caught by the new duty will need to put in place, or demonstrate they already have, adequate policies and procedures to meet the Bill’s requirements. In particular, the duty of candour will require an assiduous and timely process of reviewing and disclosing information in addition to the preparation of a new code of ethical conduct or an assessment of whether a current code is adequate to meet the requirements of the Bill.

The public sector organisations within scope of the Bill’s provisions will be considering carefully what these reforms will mean for operations on the ground. There will no doubt be calls for additional and adequate resourcing to ensure that they are in a position to assist investigations with the required speed, detail and vigour. There may well also be some consideration as to how the duties interact with existing disclosure considerations. Thought, moreover, will need to be given, for example, to how information or documents over which the authority asserts legal professional privilege will be considered in the context of the new duty of candour. 

The content of the Bill, which delivers on many of the publicised principles of the ‘Hillsborough Law’ with a legally enforceable duty of candour, is to be welcomed at a time when our constitutional safeguards need to be front and centre.